More Warming Before We Get Our Act Together. 

Action to reduce greenhouse emissions is lagging so far behind what the science tells us is necessary that some degree of warming is now inevitable. Cities such as Sydney should take pragmatic measures to prepare for an inevitable degree of warming, by planning to lift port infrastructure as sea levels rise, building new water supply systems and devising plans to minimise heatwave-related deaths. So says Michael Oppenheimer, a geoscientist at Princeton University visiting Australia this week. 

Akelsey Munro in Sydney Morning Herald (23 February 2010): 

ACTION to reduce greenhouse emissions is lagging so far behind what the science tells us is necessary that some degree of warming is now inevitable, an expert warned yesterday. 

Cities such as Sydney should take pragmatic measures to prepare for an inevitable degree of warming, for example by planning to lift port infrastructure as sea levels rise, building new water supply systems and devising plans to minimise heatwave-related deaths, said Michael Oppenheimer, a geoscientist at Princeton University and a lead author of the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

”The solution isn’t just about reducing emissions,” he said. ”It’s important for individuals and communities to be prepared for a warmer climate, because there’s going to be more warming before we get our act together. 

”We’re heading in a direction which if not averted will eventually give us a much higher sea level and drown much of the coastal zone as we know it today,” he said. 

Professor Oppenheimer received a lot of public attention recently following the news that volume two of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment report contained a glaring error: a claim that 80 per cent of the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. 

It had been missed by the report’s three-layered peer review process, and caused serious embarrassment to the IPCC, despite the in-depth projection on glacier decline being correctly covered elsewhere in the report. 

He said the mistake was ”embarrassing, because … it’s the kind of question that the IPCC ought to be working very hard to address correctly”. 

He hoped the humiliation would improve IPCC processes, but said that there was only ”one actual cold error” in a three-volume report with 2500 expert authors ”really is a testament to the fact the IPCC has worked very hard to avoid making mistakes”. 

In his view, there is no arguing with the science; but the politics of what to do about it is fair game. 

”There’s been confusion on both sides about the distinction between scientific facts and political judgments,” he said. ”Anybody is entitled to political judgments, but the scientific facts are what they are. 

”Global warming is happening whether my president wants to do something about it or not. 

”Just because I’m a scientist and have a big mouth, doesn’t mean you should listen to me on the politics.” 

Professor Oppenheimer has a two-decade association with the IPCC, overlapping his long service as chief scientist at the Environmental Defence Fund, a US non-governmental organisation. 

He describes himself as ”congenital” optimist. ”I have the expectation that humans and even governments are rational and will act on this problem. Perhaps not as expeditiously as I hoped, but they’ll act to stem the worst possible outcomes.” 

Michael Oppenheimer will speak tonight (23 Febraury) at the University of Sydney’s Seymour Centre, for the Institute for Sustainable Solutions. 

Source: www.smh.com.au 

Warming Before We Get Our Act Together

Action to reduce greenhouse emissions is lagging so far behind what the science tells us is necessary that some degree of warming is now inevitable. Cities such as Sydney should take pragmatic measures to prepare for an inevitable degree of warming, by planning to lift port infrastructure as sea levels rise, building new water supply systems and devising plans to minimise heatwave-related deaths. So says Michael Oppenheimer, a geoscientist at Princeton University visiting Australia this week.

Akelsey Munro in Sydney Morning Herald (23 February 2010):

ACTION to reduce greenhouse emissions is lagging so far behind what the science tells us is necessary that some degree of warming is now inevitable, an expert warned yesterday.

Cities such as Sydney should take pragmatic measures to prepare for an inevitable degree of warming, for example by planning to lift port infrastructure as sea levels rise, building new water supply systems and devising plans to minimise heatwave-related deaths, said Michael Oppenheimer, a geoscientist at Princeton University and a lead author of the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

”The solution isn’t just about reducing emissions,” he said. ”It’s important for individuals and communities to be prepared for a warmer climate, because there’s going to be more warming before we get our act together.

”We’re heading in a direction which if not averted will eventually give us a much higher sea level and drown much of the coastal zone as we know it today,” he said.

Professor Oppenheimer received a lot of public attention recently following the news that volume two of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment report contained a glaring error: a claim that 80 per cent of the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.

It had been missed by the report’s three-layered peer review process, and caused serious embarrassment to the IPCC, despite the in-depth projection on glacier decline being correctly covered elsewhere in the report.

He said the mistake was ”embarrassing, because … it’s the kind of question that the IPCC ought to be working very hard to address correctly”.

He hoped the humiliation would improve IPCC processes, but said that there was only ”one actual cold error” in a three-volume report with 2500 expert authors ”really is a testament to the fact the IPCC has worked very hard to avoid making mistakes”.

In his view, there is no arguing with the science; but the politics of what to do about it is fair game.

”There’s been confusion on both sides about the distinction between scientific facts and political judgments,” he said. ”Anybody is entitled to political judgments, but the scientific facts are what they are.

”Global warming is happening whether my president wants to do something about it or not.

”Just because I’m a scientist and have a big mouth, doesn’t mean you should listen to me on the politics.”

Professor Oppenheimer has a two-decade association with the IPCC, overlapping his long service as chief scientist at the Environmental Defence Fund, a US non-governmental organisation.

He describes himself as ”congenital” optimist. ”I have the expectation that humans and even governments are rational and will act on this problem. Perhaps not as expeditiously as I hoped, but they’ll act to stem the worst possible outcomes.”

Michael Oppenheimer will speak tonight (23 Febraury) at the University of Sydney’s Seymour Centre, for the Institute for Sustainable Solutions.

Source: www.smh.com.au